Specialized video lens for T2i?

Eddie Clark

New member
Do you think that lens manufacturers are currently working on DSLR lenses that will primarily be utilized for video, rather than stills photography? If not, what characteristics make for a better video lens? On my brief list, after having shot video with the kit lens, is a constant aperture lens. If one uses the Auto ISO setting, changes in light while shooting can cause a sudden and drastic change in exposure. So I'm looking at getting a constant 2.8 aperture Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS USM lens. This almost duplicates the 18-55mm kit lens, but it's faster and according to reviews has much better glass.

The reason I ask is that it's more expensive than the camera itself :shocked:

Or should I go with a fast prime wide angle lens and confine the kit lens to medium and longer shots? Thanks for the help.
 
I bit the bullet and bought the 17-55mm lens you mentioned. I have not regretted my decision. It is a beautiful lens, although the IS is a bit noisier than the kit lens. I figure after a couple of years, the lens will hold its value much better than the camera body, as lens don't go through the same pace of progress. Lenses are investments, camera bodies are expenses.
 
How do you like it for video; is it measurably better than the kit lens for typical amateur video shooting? Thank you.
 
You can get by with the kit lens. It's a great lens for video, but shows its weakness when the light gets low and especially when you shoot in the 40-55mm range. Forget about zooming while recording with the kit lens, the image will flicker... even if you have it on manual exposure and set the aperture to f5.6. A great workaround is simply not to zoom while recording. If that's the case, the kit lens is perfect and amazing value for what it does. I don't think you'll notice a measurable decrease in quality with the kit lens, as it is a good still photo lens. Very sharp in the centre with just a bit of blur and CA on the edges.

The 17-55mm doesn't exhibit the flicker. It's smooth exposure throughout the zoom range and lets in four times more light at telephoto than the kit lens which makes it a great indoor lens. It works wonderfully too as a still photo lens, and that's partly the reason I bought it. I didn't want to invest in too many primes solely for video work.
 
Very good information. I learned right away not to zoom while recording; my problem was when shooting out the passenger window of a moving car. When the car moved in and out of shade from the overhanging trees, the backlighting would blow out the exposure. But I do agree that for medium range shots in decent light, the videos are excellent. That's why I wondered if I should simply supplement the kit lens with a really good, fast wide angle prime lens. I thought that might make a really good combination to begin with.

Thanks again; you've been extremely helpful.
 
Your perfect lens for video is the manual focus lenses of the past. Not only do you have smooth manual focussing but on a variable aperture lens, the light decreases organically with no clicks from the camera. It's pretty nice.

Chris W
 
Yeah, I agree about manual focus lenses. I also think you can get better results if you manually set the aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. The problem with doing that is the form factor of the camera. Unless you really have an efficient stabilizing platform, manually focusing a lens while trying to hold the camera steady while shooting is very difficult. Of course, any movement is reflected right there on the video for all to see. And unlike holding the camera steady while snapping a photo, holding a camera still during the entirety of a scene is impossible. Of course, this can be ameliorated by using a tripod, but video lends itself to movement.
 
well nobody who's doing serious handheld is using just the stock camera body. You're getting a support system with a body contact point or your getting a steadicam system or a dolly. Millions of tricks in the book to getting nice moving shots. Wheelchair even...

Noah
 
Back
Top