Pros of dvx, please help me choose (prime or zoom)

R

regnaleb

Active member
I have a 60D with the stock 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and a Canon 50mm f/1.8.

Since I got two filming jobs that got me a little amount of money in 2011, it's
time to upgrade my glass setup.

I got around 1300$ to spend, and I'm wondering what I should get first:

- Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 35mm f/1.4
- Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
- Canon 70-200mm f/4 (non-is)

For the record, the two jobs I had were sports events, but I do alot of timelapse,
landscape and plan to do some music videos soon.

Thanks for your time
 
I thought about the Tokina but was wondering if I really needed such wide angles. Really, if you had only 3 lenses the Tokina 11-16mm would be one of those?
 
If I could only have three lenses for the 60D…

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS
 
Stephen, how do you feel about the Canon 10-22 versus the Tokina? Variable f-stop (but I wouldn't zoom while filming anyway) and better resistance to flare. Not as fast, though. I hear good things about both lenses, so it's hard for me to choose.
 
I've owned both. :D

They're both fine lenses, but I found the Tokina to be a better lens all-around, and likely a lens you'll keep for a while.

I'd urge you to get an ultra-wide like these for your time-lapse stuff.
 
I'll profit of your experience for a second if you may...

What do you really think about the Samyang 35mm? Would you say it's an essential for a starter or overkill if you don't have basic fast aperture zooms first?
 
No worries, glad to help. :D

If you're shooting sports, landscapes and time-lapse, I'd lean towards the ultra-wides and IS-based zooms. For more music video/narrative work, the 35mm f1.4 would be a great choice, I think.
 
Thanks alot this is really appreciated

As I don't have the money for a 70-200mm f2.8 IS yet, I think I will get the Tokina 11-16 and the Samyang for now, then probably save for a 70-200mm f4L non-IS, since I guess it would be silly to save 1200$ for the IS on the f4L when you can get a used but clean f2.8 IS for about 1600$. Ahhh choices choices...
 
I think you're on the right track. Concentrate on zooms that cover a range (you are) and fast, versatile primes (like the 35mm). Then upgrade over time to better and faster versions. And check Fred Miranda's marketplace for some great deals on used glass.
 
I'd second the tokina suggestion for timelapse work: amazing lens - the samyang 35mm is a great lens, but I'm not sure how it fits with your needs (it would be great for events with low light, but only if you can get relatively close to the action) - if you're doing sports often, I'd go for a long lens first, but the problem is: the 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a very mediocre lens, much softer than the IS version: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 - and for such a long lens IS is important in any case - such a lens would increase your maximum reach significantly, but it's more expensive, and would fall out of your budget - Rockmore usually susggests the 55-250 IS as a half-decent entry level long zoom with IS - much more here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html
 
oh, and apart from the 70-200, I'd definitely rule out L zooms for APS-C cameras: way too expensive, and not a great improvement over lenses specifically designed for APS-C (like the Tokina 11-16 f /2.8, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS)
 
Let me throw this out there... Have you had issues with your current lenses on shoots?
If not, and as you say you will be shooting music videos in the near future, have you thought about investing in lighting rather than more glass at the moment?

All the Best!

Dave
 
Wow excellent responds guys:)

Norman: I've been looking up the Samyang 35mm mainly because I can't get a 50mm framing at fast apertures with the lenses I own right now and (I guess like any newb) I really like the shallow depth of field at f/1.4.

I guess I'll have to save up for a 70-200 IS... But I'll probably end up getting a used f/2.8 since it's only 3-400$ more.

David: I have some competition around here since I live in a wealthy city, and the other photogs that dive into video already have a great set of lenses so I'm feeling like I gotta get some pro glass to keep up with them. Sure, lighting is the next thing I will save money up for.
 
I learned a long time ago about trying to keep up with the Jones's, pun intended... It is a very expensive and non ending pissing match.
I think a better approach is to keep up with your clients. What tools do you need to keep them happy?
If you feel you need new glass to do so, then by all means.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Many of the advantages of L glass are indeed lost in video. USM, IS don't mean much when you're locked down on a tripod. Make sure you invest in a good tripod, that could give you a big edge.

Manual focus lenses offer advantages over L lenses that mean more than just IQ. Smoother focus, better handling, hard stops instead of an endlessly rotating ring, direct access to the aperture in some cases etc.
 
Dave, thanks a lot for your input. Yeah, it sounds childish when you sum it up that way... I should start looking for what I need at a price point I can afford instead of being a runner-up in the local glass-display challenge. In fact, I pick up my clients from the mass who usually did business with crappy local SD producers and linear editors, so they were pretty impressed when I brought them HD in ProRes format. They were totally happy with the job I done and the quality of the images, so I guess you're right once again:) I work 9 to 5 as a network engineer and love to get new gadgets (and sure, I enjoy bragging about it a little) so I will take your word! Thanks again

Oh and btw I took a peek at your website, really nice setup, lives up to what you just told me: simple but effective! Congratulations!

Kin Lau: Yeah nobody pointed that out and I didn't want to bring it since I'm no pro but here's a question I've been wondering: since IS is of no use in video and
I pretty much always shoot on a tripod or slider, would the 70-200 f/4 non-IS would still be as bad as everybody says? Is it the optics or simply that you can't really shoot photos (not video) handheld above 135mm without IS?

USM is really useless for me, since I always focus manually, and as you say the infinite focus ring is a bummer.

Do you know any alternatives to the Canon 70-200 4L that's worth its price?
 
I use a 400/5.6L and 300/2.8 + 2x (600mm effective) and 50-500 @ 500mm all without IS for years, handheld too. But many people do have lousy long lens technique.

The 70-200/4L non-IS is a fine lens. Personally, I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8, and I always use that one handheld for weddings (stills) and I'm quite happy with the image quality.
 
Hi guys! I just wanted to thank you all alot: I just got myself a 3 months old Tokina 11-16mm for 550$ (which I think is a great deal) and it's incredible! I already see alot of situations where I could use it, and at f2.8 the image is cristal clear. Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top