I am planning on purchasing the 7D this week for use in my wedding videography business. I hope to build an arsenal of lenses over the next year, but my budget is very tight for the time being. That is, I don't mind dropping cash on one really good lens right now, but I can't afford multiple ones. What would you recommend as the best starter lens for video? Low light performance is extremely important as is a zoom lens. I was thinking about the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM Lens. Would this be a good choice? Any better ideas?
One lens for the 7D
- Thread starter carrcs
- Start date
Chris Watson
Well-known member
When do you need the camera? I think if you can wait a week or two (if promised delivery dates hold), you can get the 550D/Rebel t2ii for half the price at $800 with what seems like the same video capabilities. That way you have extra cash for good lenses.
Since you're on a crop sensor either way, I'd get a 17-50 and then a 50-135. After that you can look into fast primes. I'm starting out with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 with VC. It's about $600 but the lens is fast, light, and offers a good zoom range. Hope this helps!
Dave ©
Well-known member
I think you need to tell us what you mean by "dropping cash". To some, $300 is dropping cash. To others, $1300 is dropping cash. Recommendations should vary depending on your budget. Help us help you! Help us...help you!
Seems like someone said that once before...hmmm. Where is Jerry when you need him?
With consideration to your original post, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is your lens.
Thanks so much. The specs for this lens are very similar to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 with VC mentioned above, but the cost difference at B and H is about 600 bucks more expensive for the Canon. I know I'm broadcasting my ignorance here but what exactly would I be paying the extra $600 for (other than the brand name).
Chris Watson
Well-known member
This was shot with the lens I'm getting. In fact this is what made me give the Tamron a shot....
http://vimeo.com/7284726
It's a pretty well regarded lens and I could use the savings over a Canon for a 70-200 2.8. Good luck!
Last edited:
J Davis
Veteran
As much as I love the 17-55 ... for an all rounder I would sacrifice the f2.8 (which I rarely use that f stop) and go the 24-105/f4L IS.
Its personal taste tho. Either the 17-55/2.8 or the 24-105/4 they are the two best 'one-lens-to-rule-them-all' type deals out there
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
IMO 24 is too long start point for a 7d - great for a 5
16-50 2.8 tokina is worth checking out
fat focus to grab
cheap
perfect range
fat focus to grab
but no IS
S
16-50 2.8 tokina is worth checking out
fat focus to grab
cheap
perfect range
fat focus to grab
but no IS
S
shaocaholica
Well-known member
I physically bigger lens.
If you will only shoot video, stick with the kit lens. If not, here are the reasons for the 17-55:
1. It is sharp wide open and from edge to edge.
2. 3-stop Image Stabilization.
3. L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements.
4. The zoom ring is sized nicely and turns smoothly.
5. The USM lens focuses quietly and quickly.
6. Color and contrast are excellent.
7. Very high IQ.
1. It is sharp wide open and from edge to edge.
2. 3-stop Image Stabilization.
3. L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements.
4. The zoom ring is sized nicely and turns smoothly.
5. The USM lens focuses quietly and quickly.
6. Color and contrast are excellent.
7. Very high IQ.
The Tamron 17-50 VC:
1. is not sharp until it's stopped down at 5.6
2. has VC and AF that are LOUD.
3. is not a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC with VC.
Jhoe (do you really spell it that way?), I concur with you on the 24-105. Most folks consider that too much reach and not wide enough, especially on a 1.6 crop. I personally prefer reach, too.
1. is not sharp until it's stopped down at 5.6
2. has VC and AF that are LOUD.
3. is not a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC with VC.
Jhoe (do you really spell it that way?), I concur with you on the 24-105. Most folks consider that too much reach and not wide enough, especially on a 1.6 crop. I personally prefer reach, too.
I've never shot a wedding but I've been to a few.
Whichever single lens you get you get, you definitely will want a 17-50mm for weddings. You need to go really wide an also be able to get CUs without getting too close --without being able to change lenses-- and that is what the 17-50 range gives you. 24mm will not get the wide shots that would give you a sense of the whole room, which are key for remembering the party the way it was, in fact wider would be better, but 17mm is plenty wide with a slow, minor pan, for most rooms.
You could get a slower lens that went wide enough and also let you zoom in way more, which I bet would be great for the actual ceremony. However I think it would be playing with fire since weddings can be dark. f/2.8 would be a requirement IMO, not only that but also a lens that had little to no CA and stayed sharp as heck at 2.8.
If you could get two lenses, then I would go for the Canon 24-70mm which would give you a touch more reach, super sharp f/2.8 and virtually no CA with great operating feel, and compliment it with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for the wides, which you would get only a few times through the event so you can stay on the other zoom most the time.
IMO the ideal lens would be an optically perfect 14-135mm f/2.8, but they don't make those.
Whichever single lens you get you get, you definitely will want a 17-50mm for weddings. You need to go really wide an also be able to get CUs without getting too close --without being able to change lenses-- and that is what the 17-50 range gives you. 24mm will not get the wide shots that would give you a sense of the whole room, which are key for remembering the party the way it was, in fact wider would be better, but 17mm is plenty wide with a slow, minor pan, for most rooms.
You could get a slower lens that went wide enough and also let you zoom in way more, which I bet would be great for the actual ceremony. However I think it would be playing with fire since weddings can be dark. f/2.8 would be a requirement IMO, not only that but also a lens that had little to no CA and stayed sharp as heck at 2.8.
If you could get two lenses, then I would go for the Canon 24-70mm which would give you a touch more reach, super sharp f/2.8 and virtually no CA with great operating feel, and compliment it with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for the wides, which you would get only a few times through the event so you can stay on the other zoom most the time.
IMO the ideal lens would be an optically perfect 14-135mm f/2.8, but they don't make those.
I will primarily be using the camera for video, but why do you recommend that I stick with the kit lens with this being the case? My primary reason for wanting to purchase the 7d (or 550d) is to be able to capture events that take place in low light. Would something with a 2.8 not outperform the low light capabilities of the kit lens by leaps and bounds. Thanks for your advice and patience, btw.
J Davis
Veteran
Yes Jhoe Davis thats the spelling thats me.
I prefer reach as well but each to their own. Please note that this is in response to 'an all round' lens. If the lens choice was purely for shooting narrative video, short films etc I would go 17-55/2.8. But to me an 'all round' lens is something I would use for video as well as walking around town and shooting stills, going on vacation etc. For that 24-105/4L
I got Tamron 17-50 VC (more expensive version) and it's pretty good. I don't like the short focus throw and the focus ring is not damp enough for my tastes.
I actually read from www.photozone.de (a good lens review site) that the non VC Tamron is better optically. I probably would opt for that. I do shot a lot of handheld though, so the VC helps a bit.
If I did have the money, I would probably get the Canon 17-55 f2.8, but it's a LOT more.
As for the Sigma 50-150mm, that's not the most useful range. A general all purpose range of 17-50 or so is more useful because of the wide. I like some wide because I film skateboarding and it's nice to have more wide on a zoom for that.
Also, make sure to get a constant aperture zoom, meaning the f-stop does not change while zooming. The Tamron f2.8 stays at 2.8 for the entire zoom so you get no flicker when zooming and filming. Lens that have variable aperture ex. f4 to f5.6 have this annoying flicker if you do a zoom shot.
For actions sports I use the zoom a lot for little push ins and out as you follow the subject, so flicker free is important.
I actually read from www.photozone.de (a good lens review site) that the non VC Tamron is better optically. I probably would opt for that. I do shot a lot of handheld though, so the VC helps a bit.
If I did have the money, I would probably get the Canon 17-55 f2.8, but it's a LOT more.
As for the Sigma 50-150mm, that's not the most useful range. A general all purpose range of 17-50 or so is more useful because of the wide. I like some wide because I film skateboarding and it's nice to have more wide on a zoom for that.
Also, make sure to get a constant aperture zoom, meaning the f-stop does not change while zooming. The Tamron f2.8 stays at 2.8 for the entire zoom so you get no flicker when zooming and filming. Lens that have variable aperture ex. f4 to f5.6 have this annoying flicker if you do a zoom shot.
For actions sports I use the zoom a lot for little push ins and out as you follow the subject, so flicker free is important.