New to 7D, have two lenses, feels like I need a third...

A

aedude01

Active member
Goodmoring everyone!

I hope your day is going well so far (or if you're reading this at night, that you've had a good day! I used to be on this forum quite a bit, but had gotten away from posting during post on my first feature, "War Stories" (link below if you're interested).

Anyway, I'm in the process of gearing up to shoot my next film, and after seeing the type of footage that the Canon 7D produced, decided to try to shoot it using it. (My previous projects were shot on the HVX200, and DVX100a respectively.)

I realize there is a huge learning curve with the camera, so please don't think I'm going into production next week. I'm aiming for July, but if that changes, that changes. To start getting familiar with the camera I purchased two lenses, The Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens, and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF.

I feel like I need at least another lens to help round out my focal length ability, preferably something with a good zoom range, and internal stabilization. (I know this isn't news to anyone, but the video is WAAY too shaky to be usable without it it seems.) The 50mm Canon produces some beautiful close up shots, but there's no way to zoom in or out. The Tokina is beautiful in tight corners or for Extreme Wides, or Mediums with more depth but close up work it doesn't seem great for.

I'm looking for a lens that could go wider than the 50mm but also have the ability to zoom in quite a bit further. While I'm not attempting to "Run and gun" scenes, the ability to pick up some key location shots discretely with one lens would be nice. Cops seem to start asking questions in some locals if you start swapping out tons of lenses. I plan to use the lens for both still work and for my film, so versatility would be great. My budget is also rather open, as I'd rather purchase a great lens that will last a lifetime, than a $300 one that I'll later need to pay an additional large sum of money to 'upgrade' later.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Best,
Lee


In case anyone's interested, you can check out the trailer to my latest project at www.uncheckablefilms.com
 
The kit lens is not a bad choice for that range (Canon EF 28-135mm IS lens) . It is not the best of the bunch but it can yield pretty good results at a good price point.

The Tamron 17-50 VC is also a good choice.
 
Get a 17-55mm Canon. It compliments the Tokina perfectly. But, you can also get the 24-70mm Canon... 24mm is a very usable length, and therefor might be an even better compliment to your kit. I have the Tokina, the 24-70 and a f/1.8 50mm... the other way to go is to get a faster 28mm but if you want to run and gun you are talking 17-55mm zoom all the way.
 
Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Ok, so after looking at the 17-55mm w IS and the 24-70mm w out IS, I'm thinking to go with the 17-55mm.

That said, I also came across this lens: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

This sounds like a REALLY stupid question, but the way I understand lenses is that the 17mm will show more foreground than the 70mm would. That said, the 70mm would allow me to zoom in a heck of a lot further than the 17-55mm would. Is that correct or am I completely off base here?

My thoughts are, if that's correct, wouldn't I need both lenses? The 17-55 for when I want more foreground, and the 70-200 for when I want more zoom capability? Or should I just go with the 17-55mm and worry about the 70-200 later.

It sounds dumb, but the ability to swap lenses is pretty new to me. I'm used to having a fixed lens like the HVX-200. While I could do amazing things with it, I'm eager to jump deeper into the pro-sumer end of the "pool".
 
Last edited:
Wide lenses expand depth, making foreground objects look bigger than background objects. Long lenses compress, making foreground and background look closer in size.

The zoom difference from 50mm and 70mm is not a big one. The diffrence from 18 to 17 is exponentially bigger than from 51 to 50, the percentage of additional FOV is much bigger. Take a look at this chart, which BTW doesn't show you changes in compression, just field of view.

It is only to show a comparison between the FOV of different focal lengths: http://www.zeiss.com/C12575690045D1...nses-LensRangelarge/$File/master_primes_l.jpg

If you plan to stick to APS-C cameras (similar to S35), get a 17-55mm to be safe. The problem with the 17-55mm lenses is that they won't cover FF35 sensors, you'll see a black ring covering your edges (look at picture below) because the glass isn't big enough for FF35 sensors. Still, 17-55mm is the undisputed best all-around range for S35 sensors. Maybe get the Tamaron 17-50, which sounds like a good lens, and will cover you till you can start making bigger investments in lenses.

11-D3R_4295.jpg


The three lenses I would have to cover everything would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (it will work on FF35 cameras as 15-16mm, which is insane wide), a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (but the new one). Then a 28mm and a 50mm primes for low light. Still, the 17-55mm range is the best range when you don't know what's gonna happen and you need to be ready for anything.

If the 17-55mm covered FF35 I'd get one of those and a 70-200mm and call it a day with a big fat smile on my face. It is said to be just as good and even better than a few L series Canon lenses, the "pro" line (which BTW all cover FF35). It will go really wide, and tight "enough". You'll probably have to get close to get really tight, but you won't be "all up in their personal space" that much. If you got the 70-200 later you would let you also be able to get very tight from far enough that they wouldn't even know you were shooting them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top