Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS HSM or 85 1.4 HSM for video?

refocusedmedia

refocusedmedia

Veteran
Currently have\will have soon:
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 HSM
Sigma 30 f/1.4 HSM
Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Now, I have the opportunity to get one of these and I can decide which to get. I have appreciated the 135mm reach of my kit lens before (and wished I had a faster aperture), but at the same time... I really don't know how often I'll need more than 85mm. The other option, I guess is to get the cheaper Canon EF 85 f/1.8 and some other accessories. I don't know...

Anyone actually use a 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) for video work?
Anyone have an 85 1.4 or 1.8 and wish they had a 70-200 instead for video work?

All answers and insight will be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
you could pick up a Samyang 85 1.4 and an old nikon 135 f/2 for about the same price as the Sigma 85. Granted you won't have AF or auto aperture, but I would guess you aren't using those for video anyway.

or you could be even cheaper and grab a nikon 85 f/2 and a 135 f/2.8 for about 450-500 total.
 
lwright84 said:
Thanks for your response, but I'm not too concerned about cost for this.
Click to expand...

Cost is ALWAYS a concern, if not you would just buy them all. With that said you should look into the Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Lens for less than $300 as many people are happy with it
 
You misunderstand me, cost is not a concern for this particular purchase. I can go one of 3 routes, and I'm just trying to figure out which is best.
 
Well they both have their advantages, thus if cost were truly not an issue I would recommend getting both depending on what kind of work you do. However, I have the sigma 70-200 and love it. It's a tank, but its super sharp and delivers a great picture. A great budget alternative to the canon equivalent.
 
I almost pulled the trigger on a new Canon 70-200 2.8 USM, but then I saw the Sigma alternative. Besides the weatherproof-ness of the Canon, these should be VERY similar lenses...at least on paper.

So, how would you plan on supporting a big barrel like the 70-200? Don't think I'd trust the lens's mount to support the camera and accessories on the mount. So, you would have some kind of rail support, eh?
 
I use the lens collar and have my quick release plates mounted to that. That way the weight of the body is hanging off as opposed to the much heavier weight of the lens. I have had no issues doing this.
 
I almost pulled the trigger on a new Canon 70-200 2.8 USM, but then I saw the Sigma alternative. Besides the weatherproof-ness of the Canon, these should be VERY similar lenses...at least on paper.
Click to expand...

Not even close.
 
My only problem with that is that I would like to use the lens on my AF100 as well. I imagine rail support is necessary in that case.
 
Why the 2.8, do you need that speed? You may or may not, I have no clue, for you to ponder on.. But, have you looked into the 20-700 f/4 L IS?
If numbers are important to you, it does outperform the 2.8, but it is slower, if speed is of concern.
I've set my corsshairs on it.. When i gather the funds..

But ye, IS is very very helpful, and it's my main reason for even getting this lens, other than zoom feature..
I have a few manual primes, thats what i use. Shooting Manual Primes as opposed to a lens with IS on handheld work is almost night and day.
IMO, once you've gone past 50mm, atleast with what's on the market now, you are pretty vulnerable to the "jello"
 
Last edited:
You need to keep the crop factor in mind - other than a 5D, long lenses get very long.

I love the old Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF, they can be found for a few hundred bucks., Beautiful, mojo-filled lens. But sticking a giant lens on a DSLR isn't the smoothest gig in town (cool as it looks).

I get gorgeous footage with an old series E 100 2.8 - the real sleeper of the series E Nikkors. I have an 85 1.8, gorgeous lens, rarely use it for video. Hell, I consider the 50 1.8 a "long" lens for video on a small sensor.

80% of my footage is with a 28mm 2.8 prime, most of the rest with a 50 or the 100. I just don't see the fascination with zooms for video, personally. I really prefer the size of a prime. And I find that older, pre-AF primes have focus damping that's so superior to modern, it's like night and day. Af lenses just feel wobbly and flimsy with a follow focus - their focus mechanisms are designed to preserve battery life, not to feel great.
 
I just don't see the fascination with zooms for video, personally. I really prefer the size of a prime.
Click to expand...

I used to feel this way too but now I own primes AND a 17-55 2.8 IS Canon. Nice to have them together in the bunch along with the primes for work. It can really help sometimes when you need different focal lengths in a hurry. The 17-55 2.8 IS Canon surpasses the 28 2.8 in quality too. Personally I use a 28 1.8 as my standard prime and my Sigma 30mm 1.4. I see no reason to buy a prime if you're gonna be as slow as a 2.8 unless it is L glass with IS. You might as well have it on a zoom like the 17-55.

I just sold my 85 1.8 Canon. While it was a nice lens I find that the 70-200 2.8 would be more useful with the IS. I also just purchased a 100mm 2.8 Macro IS Canon L which makes sense in my opinion.
 
Yah it really depends on what you do. When I am shooting a film or interviews or some thing where I have a controlled environment and a lot of time, primes are my choice. However I do a lot of event shooting too, mainly weddings, and for that, having to switch primes over and over is just not going to happen, zooms are the way to go there.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non IS and as far as it goes for video, you may as well choose this lens over the Canon 70-200 and save money, as the lens is way beyond sufficient for good quality video and you will reap little benefit from the Canon over the Sigma for video purposes. If you want great quality for large print still photography then by all means I would recommend the Canon over the Sigma.

That being said, you may find that you get little use out of the lens unless your shot requirements are for long focal lengths, such as those needed for wildlife videography or other instances where you need to zoom in close from a distance.

My advice is to let the needs of your work determine your next lens purchase rather than trying to guess what you will need ahead of time.
 
draven4 said:
. I see no reason to buy a prime if you're gonna be as slow as a 2.8 unless it is L glass with IS. You might as well have it on a zoom like the 17-55.
Click to expand...

That's another one that makes me (at first) scratch my head, but I realize a lot of DSLR shooters aren't taking a lot of lights with them; I've yet to shoot a single frame of video at 1.8 though... usually F4 is as open as I get, unless I want a really soft BG or it's some kind of closeup shot where I need the subject totally isolated for clarity. But even then, 2.8 is a slow as I've gone, and I have several 1.8 primes.

I imagine in a non-reflex setup, having 1.8 available for focus before you roll may be helpful - though I've sometimes dedicated a 4-bank flo as a focus light, kick it on to double check focus and camera moves when I'm at f8... modern version of an old medium format shooters trick.

Maybe I'm old-school enough where I consider 2.8 "fast"... but I was using cinema lights to shoot fashion stills as early as 1990, ended up with a ton of lights by the time the DVX came out. But even 2.8 makes me paranoid when the camera or subject is moving.
 
Michael Carter said:
That's another one that makes me (at first) scratch my head, but I realize a lot of DSLR shooters aren't taking a lot of lights with them; I've yet to shoot a single frame of video at 1.8 though... usually F4 is as open as I get, unless I want a really soft BG or it's some kind of closeup shot where I need the subject totally isolated for clarity. But even then, 2.8 is a slow as I've gone, and I have several 1.8 primes.

I imagine in a non-reflex setup, having 1.8 available for focus before you roll may be helpful - though I've sometimes dedicated a 4-bank flo as a focus light, kick it on to double check focus and camera moves when I'm at f8... modern version of an old medium format shooters trick.

Maybe I'm old-school enough where I consider 2.8 "fast"... but I was using cinema lights to shoot fashion stills as early as 1990, ended up with a ton of lights by the time the DVX came out. But even 2.8 makes me paranoid when the camera or subject is moving.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The fastest I like shooting is 2.2-2.5 area and even that cause problems. Using a 24mm 1.4 lens @ 1.4 cause all kind of focusing problems for moving subjects which is what I record. In my Honest opinion I only use 1.8 aperture or less when shooting a still object and placing the camera on a tripod. 2.8 is plenty fast as long as you have proper lighting
 
Yeah, I guess I do a lot of run and gun along with doc stuff so shooting on the street at night wide open is helpful at 1.8 or 1.4. I guess different strokes for different folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top