Versatile Lens for Video 60D

J

Joe29

New member
I currently have a lens on a 60D and have learned what it can do and what its limited to etc. It is a 18 - 135 IS.

What I plan to shoot/needs
A web series that involves quite a few interviews.
May include some artistic close up shots ex. a batter adjusting grip on a baseball bat. Seeing a batters cleat digging into the ground in slow motion, dirt flies up.
Better low light performance than what I have now through my 18-135.

I was looking into some primes as the quality tends to shine through well and its very sharp. However I hear it doesn't matter all that much for video as its only about 2MP anyway. So I'm thinking of maybe having a zoom and a prime to add to the collection.

The prime I was looking at is Canon 60mm 2.8. I really liked the image quality when testing it out and the macro capability. Now I understand that it is a macro lens. WIll this affect my ability to do some other shots? I have heard this lens has some vignetting at f2.8 but is cleaner at f4. Anyone have experience with this?

Then the big question, would I be better off with other lenses given my needs?

Price range we will say at this point. Around $500 for a lens.

Thanks
Joe
 
Last edited:
Joe29 said:
I was looking into some primes as the quality tends to shine through well and its very sharp. However I hear it doesn't matter all that much for video as its only about 2MP anyway.

The prime I was looking at is Canon 60mm 2.8.
Click to expand...

It matters. The better your lens the better your image. Sharpness, contrast, color, CA, distortion, speed, quality coatings and lens elements, are all part of the equation.

If you like the Canon 60mm 2.8 than have a look at the Canon 85mm 1.8. Beautiful lens at a good price.
 
Thanks for the responses. Obviously the more money you spend (sometimes) and the better series of lens you get into the better the picture etc. But, I know there exists those lenses in the mid price range that tend to give the higher price range a run for their money etc. Any recommendations? I am new to DSLR's still so I don't quite know exactly how lens's could affect color etc. Also, the speed of a lens, I have not seen what differences that could offer. Would be great to have a slew of lenses to just take to a set and film the same scene over and over to compare, but that's not always easy to do.
 
well, if you want a faster lens in that you can consider getting a non-macro lens and adding some cheap macro tubes; some options would be:
* canon 50mm f/1.8: ultra cheap, and really, really sharp, but badly constructed, and with ugly bokeh
* canon 50mm f/1.4: reasonable price, just as sharp as the f/1.8, but with decent construction and nice bokeh
* nikon 50mm: I don't know exactly which model it is, but there's a nikon manual lens that lots of people say everybody should own
* canon 85mm f/1.8: not spectacular, but lots of people say it's a great lens for the price
* samyang 85mm f/1.4: manual lens with cheap price and amazing optics, much closer to the canon 85mm f/1.2 or the zeiss 85mm f/1.4 than to the canon 85mm f/1.4, specially in terms of bokeh (look at the reviews at photozone.de)

and the macro tubes I was talking about are these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Macro-Extension...314?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item518c44dd4a
they're extremely cheap, and they work, but beware:
* actual macro lenses use additional technologies (such as floating elements) in order to mantain image quality while focusing that close; chances are, your lens won't be as sharp with the macro tubes as it is when shooting a portrait; not a big deal, just the reason some people buy expensive macro lenses
* you lose access to all the electronics in the lens; you probably will focus manually anyway, but the aperture thing may be important: you may find the DoF too shallow in the macro range, and wish you could close your iris; it's not impossible to do that with a modern EOS lens, but the process is very cumbersome (put lens on camera without macro tubes, set aperture, un-mount lens while hitting DoF preview, the iris will be stuck at that position; mount tubes, mount lens, shoot) (I avoid all these issues by using vintage lenses, with manual aperture rings)
 
Don't forget that anything over 35mm focal length is essentially a telephoto lens on the 60D. If you can have only one lens other than your zoom, you might want to make it a 35mm or less, unless you're planning on shooting a lot of closeups or Jerry Bruckheimer style long shots. I owned the 60mm Canon f2.8, and it was great for close-up shots of flower's & bees, and is a great portrait lens, but was impractical as a cinema lens on a 7D.

If your two lenses are going to be your zoom (which is absolutely fine), and another lens, then I would plan on choosing a lens I could have on the camera about half the time I'm shooting. Also, since your zoom is slow, I would try to get as fast a lens as I could afford as a second lens. The Canon 28mm f1.8, or the Samyang 35mm f1.4 would be good examples.
 
I shoot over 50% of my stuff with a 35mm on APS-C, but he says he's going to do mostly head shots and close-ups, so I think in this case a 50mm to 85mm would be best
 
Joe29 said:
Obviously the more money you spend (sometimes) and the better series of lens you get into the better the picture etc.
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money, just pick the sharp lenses in the price category.

In the $200 to $1,200 range/

You need a wide zoom to cover 90% of your daily work. There are 3 sharp choices at 3 different prices, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 17,50mm non IS, Canon 17,55mm. They are all sharp. I use the Tamron and it's a quality image.

A longer zoom is necessary to cover events in the field. There are more choices then the wide zoom, but for sharp lenses through the zoom range there is the Canon 55-250mm, Canon 70,200mm f4L, Canon 70-200f 4L IS,

So for 2 lenses you can spend between $400 and $2,200 and get sharp images at either end of the price scale.
It's quite amazing that at the bottom end you can get IS in both lenses.

I bought the 55-250mm because I needed IS for a particular 2 day shoot as apposed to the Canon 70-200 f4L non IS. I'm glad I did. IS is really valuable over 50mm even on a tripod, I don't think I would go back to a non IS long zoom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top