Matt Choules
Active member
Kinda sucks that our American cousins get palmed off with a 28-135mm when us in the EU get a 18-135mm...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yet Another 7D Lens Question...(Kit lens vs Tamron 17-50mm?)
- Thread starter Chance White
- Start date
I've got 6 beautiful primes but I'm going to get a fast zoom with image stabilisation and probably rely on that instead. It's impossible to get usable footage handheld on the 7D without image stabilisation. the camera is very sensitive to the tiny fast vibrations that arise. They make the image turn to jelly due to the rolling shutter issue. Even on a shoulder mount, I've found it to be an issue. Also, if you've got a zoom that goes to f2.8 all the way though why do you need primes?! I find depth of field shallower than that a bit gimmicky and usually annoying in narrative films because of its myopic 'no, you can only see this tiny slice of a person's nose' effect. The sharper image quality of primes isn't going to show up at HD video resolution. I haven't noticed whether the primes yield better colour.
Matt Choules
Active member
I very much like my new Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, although it does not have IS.
I would disagree and say that if you simply increase the amounts of contact points with the body you can get very usable footage from handheld on non-IS primes.
I would disagree and say that if you simply increase the amounts of contact points with the body you can get very usable footage from handheld on non-IS primes.
I've got 6 beautiful primes but I'm going to get a fast zoom with image stabilisation and probably rely on that instead. It's impossible to get usable footage handheld on the 7D without image stabilisation. the camera is very sensitive to the tiny fast vibrations that arise. They make the image turn to jelly due to the rolling shutter issue. Even on a shoulder mount, I've found it to be an issue. Also, if you've got a zoom that goes to f2.8 all the way though why do you need primes?! I find depth of field shallower than that a bit gimmicky and usually annoying in narrative films because of its myopic 'no, you can only see this tiny slice of a person's nose' effect. The sharper image quality of primes isn't going to show up at HD video resolution. I haven't noticed whether the primes yield better colour.
Is is possible the need to go below 2.8 is for lighting ?