I'm getting ready to get my 60d (still haven't done it yet) anyway I can get the kit with the 18-135 for $1199.00. I have looked at youtube footage of this setup and it doesn't look to bad. As time are hard on everyone in the pocket book the question I ask is if you can only afford one lense would you go with the 60d 18-135 kit or would you get the 60d and a different lense and if so what lense would it be. Remeber it is a short film and not a wedding, sport etc.....
What would your choice be?
- Thread starter Corine
- Start date
Samuel H
Major Contributor
the body-only version is $300 less - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0040JHVCC...//www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_cam.html - so if $1200 is all you have, I think there's no better option; if you can spend a bit more, you can go for the body only and tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC - http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html
A T3i is just as good, cheaper, and Magic Lantern works great on it. That opens up your choice of lenses. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC or non-VC is still the best choice depending on whether you're going handheld or you're gong to be locked down on a tripod.
Then you also have options for a fast prime like the Sigma 30/1.4 or Samyang 35/1.4.
Then you also have options for a fast prime like the Sigma 30/1.4 or Samyang 35/1.4.
New_Zealand
Veteran
What about a good 50mm?
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
way too long as your only lens on APS-C
a good 35mm, perhaps, but even so it would be very limiting
now, the cheap 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS is slow and crappily built, but optically quite decent, and close to free; that one and cheap 50mm (possibly vintage), I could see as just good enough to start shooting, and you've already made some inroad towards a half-decent set of primes
a good 35mm, perhaps, but even so it would be very limiting
now, the cheap 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS is slow and crappily built, but optically quite decent, and close to free; that one and cheap 50mm (possibly vintage), I could see as just good enough to start shooting, and you've already made some inroad towards a half-decent set of primes
Any m42, OM or Nikon mount manual focus 50/1.4 will do. With an adapter, it should easily come under $100-. I use to get them for $20-30.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
The Tamron 17-50 non vc lives on my 60D. I have a 50mm 1.8 that gets used in low light, but after a year I rarely need anything else.
New_Zealand
Veteran
Hey Rockmore - Do you have any footage that you can share using that lens? Thanks
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
Honest truth is, I really do not like the quality of most zoom lenses. I've used the kit, tamron, sigma, etc. Optically I like the quality out of my Prime Lenses. Personally zoom lenses are very good because of their advantage, but something about the image just doesn't look right to me when compared to my primes.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I agree, but with an Aps-c camera in the 17mm 2.8 or wider range there aren't many choices in primes. I didn't want to invest in the canon 17-55 2.8 because I'm not sure i will remain in the Aps-c format, I prefer FF and have been collecting primes for that.
When the next 5D arrives I will probably switch to that and my 24mm prime with a fast 50mm for a walk around combo, but who knows when that will be. I'm on my 2nd Aps-c body and still waiting.
After a lot of debate I'm convenence the 70-200 F4L IS is a must have for me because it's tack sharp, versitile, compact and light weight. In a controlled shoot primes are the way to go, but in unpredictable situations, you may miss the shot you are looking for while changing lenses.
These stills show the Tamron has relatively good bokeh even wide. These shots where at 17mm and 24mm (approx)
Attachments
Last edited:
New_Zealand
Veteran
How much better is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens compare to the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8?
David W. Jones
Veteran
Better? They are completely different focal length zooms.
David W. Jones
Veteran
There are many zoom lenses offering image quality comparable or better than some prime lenses.
The times they are a changing!
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I shot this last month all with the 60D and the Tamron 17-50mm non VC
http://www.mediafire.com/?kdefr6agkgea5sa
New_Zealand
Veteran
Thanks Rockmore. This video of yours make me feel much better about getting the 17-50. Everything I saw on youtube looked like crap but your footage look GREAT!!!
ROCKMORE
Veteran
It's a very solid lens pick and a good value, but I would stress a few other points with this lens or any other. The more even your lighting is the richer your image will look. The Canon still can't handle extreme contrast in exposure. I shoot everything with Technicolor Cinestyle 0,-4,-1,0 to increase the DR. The original footage is quite milky, but after grading all the detail is still there in the shadows and most of the highlights. Cinestyle is the closest to film behavior I have used.
Last edited: